The Abilene reflector. [volume] (Abilene, Kan.) 1883-1888, 1887-03-24
For The Reflector.

MEssRS. EDITORS:
The csse Of the State of Kansas
against George Harvey, tried and decld-
ed in the district court of Dickinson
county tie other day, is one of impor-
lance TO the public. The facts proved
All the al, briefly stated, are as fol-
lows
Al ebert Yonly, twelve years OF
age, Wa pupil in one of the public
schools Of the county. Mr.. Harvey IS
one of the school board of the district.
The boz. Yonly, was very unruly Ill the
school, as the teacher testified, guilty
of continued disobedience. Inc
teacher appealed to the district board
who made several attempts to induce
the refractory boy to obey the rules OF
the school. Ali, however, to no pur-
pose. and the board at last sent Mr..
Harvey. who was clerk of the board, to
the school with instructions to do what
was right and necessary in the premises.
Mr.. Harvey went to the boys father
and requested him to make his son be-
have at school, and stated that unless
the boy would obey the rules OF the
school. the board would be compelled
to expeI him. The father replied that
he did not tell the boy to diSobey and
would not ask him to obey. Then Mr..
Harvey went to the school house and
there witnessed several wilfully fragrant
violations of the rules of the school by
the boy, after having been repeatedly
requested by the teacher and Mr.. Har-
yey to desist. Finally Mr.. Harvey told
him he would have to behave or leave
the school. He refused to conduct
himself properly or promise to do so.
Then Mr. Harvey took him by the arm
and led him, without any violence, out
of the school house, and talked kindly
70 him and urged him to do better,
which if he would do, he might return
and take his place in the school. The
boy agreed to do so, and Mr.. Harvey
permitted him to 60 back into the
school.
For taking the. boy out, his father
had Mr.. Harvey arrested for assault
and battery, and on Monday last he was
tried on this charge before Judge Nichol-
son, without a jury. After hearing the
evidence, Judge Nicholson, in deciding
the case, said: During my experience
as lawyer and judge Inever knew case
of this character III court. We send
our children to school in order that they
may be fitted to participate by and by
in the blessings of free government
The first great duty of the citizen is tC
obey the laws of his county. The
time to prepare him for all the duties OF
life, is IN his childhood, when he ought
to be taught that cheerful and willing
obedience to the lawful orders Of those
who are in authority over him. l have
no patience with the idea that seems Il
prevail nowadays, that the teacher J!
but a figure-head in the school room
and that any selfwilled pupil can do a.
he or she pleaseS and defiantly tell TIT
teacher touch me, if you dare. If you
dare to correct me for my wilful viola
lions of the decencieS of this school, n!
father will have you arrested ant
punished" If the courts sanction Sucl
conduct on the part of children ant
parents, our school houses as such ma!
be shut UP and converted to some use
full purpose. 1t would result in virtua
destruction of our school system. w,
cannot afford to 90 to that extent. Thu
law is that the teacher stands for tn,
time being in place of the parent, ant
has legal authority TO inf1ict reaSonabl,
chastisement on a child for wilful dis
obedience of any inst rule for the prope
government of the school, being alwayi
responsible to the law for any abuse o.
that authority. In the case at bar the
teacher, instead of exercising he
authority appealed to the district board
and the defendant, at the request of an
other member of the board, went to the
school to exercise the powers conferred
upon them by sec. 26, chapter l22, Law!
of 1876. Under that section the board
and the defendant as its representative
had authority to suspend the boy fOl
his misconduct. The power to sus
pend in eludes the power TO eject from
the school room. The defendant acted
kindly and gently with the boy in per
forming that disagreeable duty. The
boys conduct was outrageous, anC
detrimental to the interests and welfare
of the school, and the defendants con
duct was commendable and right.
The court finds the defendant not
guilty and discharges him. The cost:
of the prosecution will be taxed to The
prosecuting witness. -